Part 1 Theory and Practice

EDU 20029
14021518

On my observational visits to the various schools in the area around Keele University, I
noticed several styles of teaching. Some styles and practices were similar across the different
schools, but some teaching styles were very different. At each school, however, when I asked the
teachers if there was a specific theorist that influenced their teaching practices, they could think
of no one in particular. After analyzing their lessons and comparing them to my knowledge of
several different theorists, I have been able to draw similarities and differences between
theoretical teaching and teaching in practice.
One practice that was common in three of the schools I observed was a uniform check
preceding the first class of the day. I noticed this practice in a primary school, a secondary
school, and a sixth form. The uniform checks were routine, and the students knew to expect
them; they had been trained to stand and show what they were wearing to the teacher. They also
knew that if they were not dressed to the school standard, they would receive some kind of
consequence. Though this process is routine and is expected as part of a regular school day, it can
be traced back to B.F. Skinners concept of operant conditioning (McLeod, 2007b). Operant
conditioning is about studying the cause and effect of behavior and changing the behavior or
keeping it the same through the use of reinforcement. A wanted behavior that is reinforced tends
to be repeated (McLeod, 2007b). The teachers use reinforcement in order to make the behavior
of dressing appropriately for school compulsory. If the teachers did not check the students

uniforms every day, it would not be likely that the students would continue to wear the uniform
to school.
The students are first taught the behavior of dressing appropriately for school in primary
school, but the behavior is continuously reinforced through secondary school and sixth form. By
the time they leave school, dressing appropriately is a habit that no longer requires extra thought
or practice. This behavior can even carry over into other aspects of life, like how to dress for a
job or special occasion.
Another teaching practice that was common among several of the classrooms that I
visited was differentiated instruction. Differentiated instruction is a branch of brain-based
learning, which means that it is based on the science of learning (Brain-Based Learning, 2007).
Differentiated instruction is teaching material in several different ways to access different
learners. An excellent example of differentiated instruction that I was able to observe happened
in a year one class at the primary school I visited. The class was learning the story of the Good
Samaritan. They started the lesson by watching an animated video of the story two times. The
teacher then made a flow chart of the characters from the story on the board; the students were
asked to volunteer ideas of the characters they had seen. Then the students were given a blank
storyboard. They were supposed to write what happened in the different scenes and then draw a
picture of each scene. When they had finished their storyboards, the whole class took turns acting
out the story with the help of the teacher. Some students were more enthusiastic about some of
the activities; their enthusiasm depended on what they felt comfortable doing, which reflects the
way that they think. Students who preferred to sit quietly and make their storyboard may not
have been as excited about acting out the story, and the students who were excited about acting
out the story may not have been as excited about making their storyboard. Students learn in

different ways, so differentiating instruction is a good way to ensure that as many students as
possible can absorb the lesson.
I also saw an example of differentiation in a math class I observed in the secondary
school. The students were studying complementary and supplementary angles. The lesson started
with a short review of what the different angles are and how one can find them given a group of
intersecting lines. This review was lecture style and only lasted about ten minutes. The students
were then given a worksheet with several problems of the type they had just discussed. They
were also given highlighters and told to highlight certain patterns indicating angles on their
worksheet; they were allowed to work in pairs. After about fifteen minutes had passed, the
teacher put two harder problems on the board and asked for volunteers to solve them. Once they
finished that activity, the students moved to the computer lab. In the lab, they worked on similar
problems mixed in with informational slides on a specific website. The students worked
individually and could move through the pages at their own pace. This lesson shows
differentiation because the students learned the material and attempted problem in several
different ways. The teacher appealed to auditory and visual learners with the lecture, visual and
kinesthetic learners with the worksheet, and visual learners with the computer slides. The teacher
also addressed social needs by allowing students to work with one another. The teacher also
allowed students to take home the worksheet to turn in the next day so they could work at their
own pace on that as well.
In the year seven history class I observed at the secondary school, I noticed a teacher use
schema extensively in her lesson. Schema was a theory of Jean Piaget. Schema includes the
understandings we have of things we have encountered combined with our own personal
experiences. Schema is interconnected and is used to help one understand new ideas or concepts

(McLeod, 2009). The lesson I observed was about the ancient story of the origin of Rome. She
began the lesson by asking what they remembered about the story they read and wrote what they
remembered on the board. Then she began talking about why the story may be considered
important. She related the origin of Rome to the importance of roots and how roots relate to her
own life. She effectively shared her schema with the class as a teaching tool to get the students to
relate the story to their own lives and their own schema. The teacher then read the story to them,
explaining the basic ideas of the story as she went. She came to a point in the story where the
little boy drinks milk from the she-wolf that raised him, which caused some students to voice
their disgust. The teacher used that moment to compare how the boy drinks milk from the wolf to
how most modern people drink milk from cows. She related the story to their own lives again,
causing the students to use and evaluate their schema. The teacher continued with her lesson
from there.
In the same classroom with the same teacher but with a group of year eleven students, I
observed a situation that was completely against the theories of Piaget. Piaget emphasized and
encouraged a focus on the process of learning instead of the end product (McLeod, 2009). In this
class, the lesson was meant to prepare them for an in-class, eight hour essay that they would be
writing in a few weeks. The students were supposed to know information about the civil rights
movement in the United States to be able to write a two thousand word essay on it. They would
be evaluated on that essay rather the process they went through to learn that information. It was
not, however, the teachers decision for her students to write this essay. I think they were
required to test their knowledge in this format by some administrator.
Another theory in practice that I was able to observe was the idea of the zone of proximal
development. This is one of Vygotskys theories. It has to do with difference between what a

student can do on their own versus what they can do with guidance from someone with
knowledge (McLeod, 2007a). If a student is given a problem without any help, they may not be
able to solve it or understand it, but if they are given guidance, that knowledge and
understanding may be within their reach. I saw this concept demonstrated at the special school I
visited. The class had eight students who were anywhere from fourteen to sixteen years old and
had various severities of disabilities. As a result, instruction for students was highly
individualized. They had lessons together but were evaluated differently. Some students needed
more guidance and encouragement from the staff to understand or complete assignment, while
some students could work independently.
Related to the zone of proximal development, Vygotsky theorized that group members
should have varying levels of ability so students who are more advanced can help less advanced
students succeed (McLeod, 2007a). I saw this concept in the music class I observed at the special
school. Half of the class went to a music class where they were learning how to play the drums.
Each student took a turn on the drums, while the instructor taught them specific beats. The beats
he taught them were customized to their level of ability; the students who werent drumming
cheered on the student that was drumming at the time. The students seemed to enjoy learning
how to play the drums in a small group setting.
In the various schools I observed, I saw many different teaching practices, but there were
a few practices that were noticeably absent. One theory that I wish I could have seen put into
practice was an application of Vygotskys theories in reciprocal teaching. The idea of reciprocal
teaching is that the teacher and the students should be learning alongside one another. Learning is
a collaboration rather than a one-sided teaching process. Over time, the role of the teacher is
reduced and the students are free to learn things independently (McLeod, 2007a). This is a

practice that is not yet widely used. The traditional model of letting the teacher give all the
information to the students to learn is still much more common in modern classrooms.
Similarly, Piagets theory that learning should be student-centered is also not seen very
often in classrooms. When Piagets theories are applied to education, it is clear that it was his
belief that children learn better through discovery (McLeod, 2009). When teachers facilitate
learning rather than give direct instruction or lecture, the learning that the students achieve will
be more meaningful and it is more likely that they will remember what they have learned. Bruner
also supported this theory of discovery learning. He theorized that the purpose of education was
to facilitate a childs learning so they acquire thinking and problem-solving skills that they can
then apply to other situations (McLeod, 2008). I believe that application of those concepts in
classrooms would benefit the teachers and the students.
The visits I was able to make to the schools around Keele University have allowed me to
observe several different kinds of teaching practices and the theories behind them. Common
routines that have become monotonous daily procedures can be traced back to theory; teaching
practices that seem common now were once revolutionary theoretical ideas. It may not always be
obvious to the teachers that they are using certain theories to form effective lessons for their
students, but similarities can be found between practice and theory. Teaching practices and styles
have a base in theory, and through my observations at the different schools, I am able to
appreciate the how theory is put into practice.

Sources

Brain-Based Learning, 2007. Available: http://edglossary.org/brain-based-learning/. Last

accessed 11th Jan 2015.
McLeod, S. (2007a). Lev Vygotsky. Available: http://www.simplypsychology.org/vygotsky.html.
Last accessed 11th Jan 2015.
McLeod, S. (2007b). Skinner - Operant Conditioning. Available:
http://www.simplypsychology.org/operant-conditioning.html. Last accessed 11th Jan
2015.
McLeod, S. (2008). Bruner. Available: http://www.simplypsychology.org/bruner.html. Last
accessed 11th Jan 2015.
McLeod, S. (2009). Jean Piaget. Available: http://www.simplypsychology.org/piaget.html. Last
accessed 11th Jan 2015.